maul question

[ChrisR]

From chrismtl: "This situation would penalize the attacking team who clearly had a much more dominant maul formed and moving forward in accordance with the laws."

This sentiment has been expressed before Using "penalize" suggests that the pack dominant team is unfairly disadvantaged. Not so. It is simply one team managing the game toward its strengths and away from its weaknesses. Just sound tactical rugby.

I would suggest to a team that wants to keep the maul going that they keep the opponents bound in.

 

[crossref]

The RFU have been telling us for about 5 years now, that a team without the ball can not stop a maul being a maul or a ruck being a ruck by leaving either!

5 years -- so in fact ever since the 2008 IRB clarification that said the opposite

 

[Phil E]

I would suggest to a team that wants to keep the maul going that they keep the opponents bound in.

Why?
The law doesn't require it.

 

[The Fat]

I'd be curious to see what the IRB law book looked like in 2008 and see if the maul section has been updated since then.

I don't have a 2008 book but I do have a 2009 and it pre-dates Law 17.4(f). I would guess that the 2008 & 2009 books are very similar.
The Law book changed significantly in 2010.
In the 2009 version, you could successfully end a maul by pulling it to the ground (providing you pulled the player down by grasping between the shoulders and hips). In 2010, that option is illegal.

 

[Browner]

The notion that a team who are unable to prevent a maul going forwards have no practical alternative to disrupt this aspect of opposition game play , ie they can just continue it until they score , doesn't sit well with me at all.

Deliberate disengagement is a modern defence inspired tactic to thwart mauls/ruck/ lineout strength , i imagine that Laws weren't originally written to expect such passive play.

Either amend all law to prohibit voluntary removal in any phase of play ...or give equal value to the tactic in all aspects (scrum safety override)

Given the conflict between 17.4 (f) & 4\2008 I prefer my hat on the "it's now open play" peg.

Ps...On the subject of ref management....& IF you subscribe to the 4\2008 Law, then rather than "use it" ( which still imply both 5s & offside line protections ) .I'd rather hear " maul over" or "maul ended" or " open play" ( which is the referee informing the players that 'offside lines' have ended)

 

[crossref]

clearly the 2008 clarification is superseded by the modern Law book which directly contradicts it.

but I agree with the broad point you make browner : with the Laws as they stand, once the oppo get a maul moving the only legal defence is to push. There is no other legal way to stop the maul advancing all the way to the tryline.

 

[didds]

For me here, the key phrase is 'leaving' as that implies a conscious action (read voluntarily).

purely OOI... what term might be used then if they leaving unconsciously/involuntarily?

didds

 

[RobLev]

I don't have a 2008 book but I do have a 2009 and it pre-dates Law 17.4(f). I would guess that the 2008 & 2009 books are very similar.
The Law book changed significantly in 2010.
In the 2009 version, you could successfully end a maul by pulling it to the ground (providing you pulled the player down by grasping between the shoulders and hips). In 2010, that option is illegal.

The Laws were amended in May 2009 to include the word "begins" (in place of "occurs") in the Definition section, and to include 17.4(f)&(g). The explanation includes the comment:

[LAWS] The major change is the word “begins” in the definition because as the maul develops the maul may not comply with the definition especially if the opponents not in possession of the ball voluntarily leave the maul. [/LAWS]

It looks like the idea was to change the Law away from the meaning as clarified by 4/2008, to ensure that the maul only needed to meet the definition as it began, to ensure it could only end either successfully or unsuccessfully, and couldn't just fade away for lack of defenders as 4/2008 indicated (oddly, because there were only 4 clarifications in 2008, it refers to the clarification as 5/2008).

 

[RobLev]

The RFU have been telling us for about 5 years now, that a team without the ball can not stop a maul being a maul or a ruck being a ruck by leaving either! Maybe another law clarification from the IRB is needed!

It looks like the Law was changed deliberately to overrule 4/2008; so no further clarification needed, 4/2008 is a dead letter.

 

[crossref]

It looks like the Law was changed deliberately to overrule 4/2008; so no further clarification needed, 4/2008 is a dead letter.

the IRB really should remove clarifications that have been superseded.

(Or at least archive them so that they only appear for those who are specificlly searching for arcane or redundant material)

 

[Greig]

Here is a situation I saw last weekend.

A Blue player is advancing with the ball, and a red opponent latches onto the ball, and holds the Blue player up. Several Blue and Red players bind on, and a maul forms. Ref calls "Maul!". A few seconds later the maul collapses (Blue player attempting to go to ground), and as it does so, all players except the original Blue and Red players unbind, leaving the two players on the ground both still tightly bound to each other and the ball.

The ref calls for the red player to "Release!". Red player does not hear the ref, and continues to hold on. PK against red.

:chin:

At the moment the whistle blows:

Does the maul still exist?
Has the maul ended?
Is this a tackle?
Who is the tackler?

Comments please.

 

[OB..]

Here is a situation I saw last weekend.

A Blue player is advancing with the ball, and a red opponent latches onto the ball, and holds the Blue player up. Several Blue and Red players bind on, and a maul forms. Ref calls "Maul!". A few seconds later the maul collapses (Blue player attempting to go to ground), and as it does so, all players except the original Blue and Red players unbind, leaving the two players on the ground both still tightly bound to each other and the ball.

The ref calls for the red player to "Release!". Red player does not hear the ref, and continues to hold on. PK against red.

:chin:

At the moment the whistle blows:

Does the maul still exist?
Has the maul ended?
Is this a tackle?
Who is the tackler?

Comments please.

I think this calls for common sense rather than trying to exstract an answer from legal verbiage.

There is no provision for turing a maul into a tackle, so it is a maul when it goes to ground. Since the ball is not immediately available and neither payer is clearly at fault. declare a maul turnover because Blue took the ball in.

I hope the referee said more than just "Release". Colour is essential in such situations.

This situation illustrates a point I have made before: the law makers need to have a matrix covering transitions between open play phases. It might even be turned into a separate law, but at least it would focus their attention on the possibilities, so that they can ensure these are covered in the existing laws.